Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
04/26/2019 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB145 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 145-PROPERTY CRIME; MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT TOOLS
1:33:17 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 145, "An Act relating to crime and criminal
procedure; establishing the crime of possession of motor vehicle
theft tools; relating to controlled substances; relating to
credit toward a sentence of imprisonment; relating to
sentencing; relating to registration of sex offenders; relating
to the definition of 'sex offender or child kidnapper'; relating
to operating under the influence; relating to refusal to submit
to a chemical test; relating to the duties of the commissioner
of corrections; relating to the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission; relating to the duties of the attorney general and
the Department of Law; requiring law enforcement agencies to
test sexual assault examination kits; requiring notification of
completion of testing; relating to reports on untested sexual
assault examination kits; and relating to public disclosure of
information relating to certain minors."
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the committee would be taking up
amendments to HB 145. He stated for the record that Legislative
Legal Services has permission to make any technical and
conforming changes to the bill.
1:34:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 31-
LS0889\U.8, Radford, 4/25/19, which read as follows:
Page 13, line 1, through page 14, line 23:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 21, following line 6:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 31. AS 12.55.015 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(l) In making a determination under (a)(12) of
this section for a defendant convicted of a crime
involving a sex offense as defined in AS 12.63.100 or
a crime involving domestic violence as defined in
AS 18.66.990, there is a presumption that, unless the
court finds on the record, by clear and convincing
evidence, that contact between a defendant and the
victim of the offense is necessary, the court shall
order the defendant to have no contact, either
directly or indirectly, with the victim until the
defendant is unconditionally discharged."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 22, line 7, through page 24, line 28:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, lines 16 - 24:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 37. AS 12.61.050 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) Through the automated victim notification
system established in (a) of this section, the
Department of Corrections shall notify a victim of a
sex offense as defined in AS 12.63.100 or a crime
involving domestic violence as defined in AS 18.66.990
of the option to request a protective order under
AS 18.65.850 or AS 18.66.100 and provide contact
information for state victim resources, including the
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, the
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault, the Office of Victims' Rights, and the
Violent Crimes Compensation Board. This notification
must occur when the offender of the victim is released
from incarceration or when the order under
AS 12.55.015(l) expires, whichever is later."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 35, line 28:
Insert "and"
Page 35, following line 28:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(5) the number of crime victims that
participated in the prosecution of and court process
relating to the offense in which the person was a
victim; and"
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
Page 39, line 30, through page 40, line 3:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
Page 40, line 4:
Delete "sec. 28"
Insert "sec. 23"
Page 40, line 5:
Delete "sec. 29"
Insert "sec. 24"
Page 40, line 6:
Delete "sec. 30"
Insert "sec. 25"
Page 40, line 7:
Delete "sec. 31"
Insert "sec. 26"
Page 40, line 8:
Delete "sec. 32"
Insert "sec. 27"
Page 40, line 9:
Delete "sec. 33"
Insert "sec. 28"
Page 40, line 10:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 29"
Page 40, line 11:
Delete "sec. 35"
Insert "sec. 30"
Page 40, line 12:
Delete all material and insert:
"(31) AS 12.55.015(l), enacted by sec. 31
of this Act;"
Page 40, line 13:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 44"
Page 40, line 14:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 45"
Page 40, line 17:
Delete "sec. 36"
Insert "sec. 32"
Page 40, line 18:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 33"
Page 40, line 19:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 40, line 20:
Delete "sec. 39"
Insert "sec. 34"
Page 40, line 21:
Delete "sec. 40"
Insert "sec. 35"
Page 40, line 22:
Delete "sec. 41"
Insert "sec. 36"
Page 40, line 25:
Delete "sec. 43"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 40, line 26:
Delete "sec. 44"
Insert "sec. 39"
Page 40, line 27:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 40"
Page 40, line 28:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 41"
Page 41, line 2:
Delete "sec. 51"
Insert "sec. 46"
CHAIR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
1:34:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES said Amendment 1 would remove the
provisions related to indecent viewing and production of a
picture. She referenced earlier committee discussions with DOL
and the Interim Public Defender. She explained that the
underlying statute "is quite messy" and confusing to
practitioners. She added that sections of the underlying
statute appear to conflict with other existing statutes,
specifically the sexual abuse of a minor statute. She said the
provisions raised a number of challenges and, therefore,
Amendment 1 would strip them from HB 145, leaving existing law
unchanged.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES said Amendment 1 would also fulfill a
request made by the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence & Sexual
Assault (ANDVSA) by adding three new provisions. She addressed
lines 8 to 15 [section 31] on page 1 of the amendment. She said
the language therein would add a presumption that the court
shall order the defendant to have no contact with the victim of
sexual offenses and domestic violence. She addressed lines 3 to
13 [section 37] on page 2 of the amendment. She explained that
this provision would establish that the Department of
Corrections (DOC) must include in Victim Information and
Notification Everyday (VINE) information about the option to
request a domestic violence protective order. She said it would
also require that VINE provide information regarding victim
resources prior to the release of a defendant from
incarceration.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES addressed lines 22 to 24 on page 2 of the
amendment, which she said would enhance the information that DOL
must report to include the number of crime victims that
participate in the prosecution of and court process relating to
an offense.
1:36:53 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, questioned
the helpfulness of the proposed section 31 in Amendment 1. She
said it is her sense that the judge will include a no contact
order in a sentence for a crime of domestic violence or a sexual
offense when he/she deems it necessary. She added that many of
those cases are plea bargains, and that DOL includes a no
contact order in a plead sentence when appropriate. She said,
if the committee still thinks the section would be helpful, it
could slightly adjust the wording to be more appropriate. She
highlighted the phrase "In making a determination under (a)(12)"
in line 9 of page 1 and suggested replacing it with "When
imposing a sentence for a crime involving a sex offense or
domestic violence " She noted that the court does not make
determinations under (a)(1) through (a)(13). She briefly
described how a judge would approach those subsections. She
suggested an additional adjustment to language in line 12
reading "by clear and convincing evidence." She said the
wording would raise an implication to judges that there needs to
be an evidentiary hearing or something more than would be
necessary. She suggested the language could read, "without any
standard of proof ..." She noted that when statutes do not have
a standard of proof and the court has to find something, the
default is always "by a presumption of the evidence."
1:39:52 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked her to clarify the second suggestion. He
posited that she recommended deleting the language in line 12
reading "unless the court finds on the record, by clear and
convincing evidence" so that it reads "there is a presumption
that contact between a defendant and the victim of the offense
is necessary."
MS. MEADE clarified that she would keep the phrase "unless the
court finds so the clause would read, "there is a presumption
that, unless the court finds that contact between a defendant
and the victim of the offense is necessary."
CHAIR CLAMAN summarized the suggestion as the deletion of the
words "by clear and convincing evidence."
MS. MEADE confirmed that summary. She clarified that the
provision in question relates to a sentencing for somebody
convicted of, for example, a crime of domestic violence or
sexual assault. She said the court would include the no contact
order as a condition of the individual's sentence until he/she
is unconditionally discharged. She added that, should the
individual violate the condition by having contact with the
victim, it could be grounds for a petition to revoke the
individual's probation. She distinguished between this and the
issuing of a civil protective order.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for confirmation that her suggestion for line
9 would be to edit it so that it reads, "At sentencing for a
defendant convicted of a crime involving a sex offense ..."
MS. MEADE said that would effectively avoid the incongruency of
implying the court makes determinations "on each of those
provisions."
1:42:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how the word "necessary" would be
construed by the court. He asked how "necessary" is different
from "preferable."
MS. MEADE said "necessary" is a term currently in the provisions
for short-term protective orders, so the concept "would not be
unusual" for the courts. He said they would likely consider
things like whether the defendant is "needed at home" and
whether the victim wants the person to be at home and have
contact. But, she said, if the victim would express fear or
some legitimate reason, that would also play into the decision.
1:43:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1, incorporating the changes suggested by Ms. Meade,
as follows:
Page 1, line 9
Delete "In making a determination under (a)(12)
of this section"
Insert "At sentencing
Page 1, line 12, after "finds on the record"
Delete ", by clear and convincing evidence,"
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1
was adopted.
1:45:20 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, addressed the provision located on page 2,
lines 20 to 25, which would impose a new obligation on DOL to
start tracking whether or not a victim is participating in the
court process. She stated that Amendment 1, as drafted, would
place that provision in the section of HB 145 related to the
reporting of the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission. She said
DOL recommends moving the obligation to section 55, located on
page 36 of the bill. She noted that the change would require a
renumbering of the obligations already listed in that section.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if DOL has any objection to the language of
Amendment 1 aside from its proposed location.
MS. SCHROEDER answered no.
1:46:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the provision located in
line 29 of page 35 of HB 145 should also be moved to section 36,
as it too deals with information coming from DOL.
MS. SCHROEDER said that provision is drafted correctly because
it would be added to the list of things that must be included in
the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission's annual report to the
legislature and to the governor.
CHAIR CLAMAN suggested that a conceptual amendment would provide
the necessary fix to the issue raised by Ms. Schroeder. He
suggested the conceptual amendment insert the aforementioned
provision into section 55 of the bill rather than section 53.
MS. SCHROEDER said "correct."
1:47:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES motioned to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2
to Amendment 1, which would incorporate Ms. Schroeder's
suggested change.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for the amendment to be repeated.
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that the language located on page 2,
lines 20 to 25 of the amendment would currently be inserted into
section 53 of the bill, and that Conceptual Amendment 2 to
Amendment 1 would place that language, as appropriate, in
section 55 of the bill.
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 1
was adopted.
1:48:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN addressed the proposed section 31 located
on page 1 of Amendment 1. He asked if the language referring to
"the defendant" post-conviction is customary. He asked if there
is ever a change in language after the conviction, or if the
individual is referred to as "the defendant" in perpetuity.
MS. SCHROEDER said that is the appropriate language to use
because the section refers to the sentencing of an individual,
so at that stage the individual is still a defendant.
1:49:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that Amendment 1 would require
the imposition of a no contact order unless the court finds it
necessary not to impose the order. He called that requirement
"problematic." He remarked that there is currently a process in
place for a victim to make a request for a protective order. He
said Amendment 1 would turn that process on its head by
automatically imposing a no contact order unless "a new finding
is presented. He said that is like proving a negative. He
suggested that misapplication of the provision could "raise the
burden on things like child custody" because many domestic
violence protective orders involve couples with children. He
said adding "another wrinkle" to the process would make it
difficult for a parent convicted of domestic violence to have
contact with his/her children, even when that contact is
supported by both parties. He expressed concerns that it would
also restrict direct and indirect contact between the parties.
1:52:23 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN withdrew his objection to adopting Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected to adopting Amendment 1.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Shaw, Kopp, Stutes,
LeDoux, and Claman voted in favor of Amendment 1.
Representative Eastman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment
1, as amended, was adopted by a vote of 5-1.
1:53:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 31-
LS0889\U.9, Radford, 4/26/19, which read as follows:
Page 19, line 8, following "AS 11.71.050(a)(4)":
Insert "within the preceding 10 years"
CHAIR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES explained that section 31 of the bill
would establish a basis to prosecute repeat offenders of
possession of any amount of schedule IA or IIA controlled
substances at the class C felony level. She added that a person
would commit a felony if he/she possesses any amount of a
Schedule IA or IIA drug and he/she was previously convicted two
or more times of drug possession of a schedule IA or IIA
controlled substance, either as a felony or as a misdemeanor.
She stated that Amendment 2 would provide a 10-year lookback
period for prior misdemeanor drug possession convictions for
drug offenses. She noted that the lookback period for
misdemeanors is currently 5 years. She said DOL testified that
10 years would be an appropriate lookback period in this
instance as HB 145 seeks to bump a misdemeanor offender to the
felony level.
1:54:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said he conceptually supports a 10-year
lookback period as it would be consistent with recidivist
statutes related to theft, assault, and driving under the
influence (DUI). He expressed a concern relating to the
drafting of the amendment and questioned whether it would insert
the language "within the preceding 10 years" in the correct
place in statute. He noted that AS 11.71.050(a)(4), which is
referenced in the section into which the language would be
inserted, relates to possession of controlled substances around
school grounds, recreational youth centers, and school buses.
He recommended inserting the language not into line 8 on page 19
of the bill, but rather into line 5.
MS. SCHROEDER said Representative Kopp is correct. She endorsed
placing the language in line 5 on page 19 after the word "and.
1:56:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved Amendment 1 to Amendment 2, which
would amend line 1 of Amendment 2 to read "Page 19, line 5,
following 'and'.
1:57:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked, should Amendment 1 to Amendment 2
be adopted, what the impact would be to lines 7 and 9 on page 19
of the bill.
MS. SCHROEDER said moving the language to line 5 would make the
lookback period apply to subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C). She
said that means if the individual had been convicted under
Alaska laws or the laws of another jurisdiction, the lookback
period would be 10 years.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said his understanding is that there
currently is no restriction on lookback for line 7 or line 9, so
by adopting the amendment, the committee would be imposing a
lookback that does not currently exist.
MS. SCHROEDER answered that is correct. She said it is a policy
call for the legislature to make.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that there is currently no way to move a
third-time offender within 10 years from the misdemeanor level
to the felony level. He said, "What this allows you to do is
take the third-time offender and bump them up."
MS. SCHROEDER said that is correct. She clarified that other
recidivist statutes related to bumping an offender to a higher
classification of offense usually contain a lookback period.
Otherwise, she said, DOL would have "to try to parse out between
the lookback period for misdemeanors and the lookback period for
felonies." She said, "this adds clarification to the law" and
would prevent future litigation of an appropriate lookback
period.
1:59:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked, "If we don't have this amendment,
you could look back forever, right?"
CHAIR CLAMAN said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why there would be litigation and
why DOL would be "parsing out things."
MS. SCHROEDER said a lookback period is usually prescribed in
statute for situations in which a repeat offense is bumped up to
the felony level. She remarked that it is helpful for DOL to
have something set in statute, so it does not have to decide
between the 5-year lookback period set in statute for the
misdemeanor conduct or the 10-year lookback period set in
statute for the felony that the conduct becomes once elevated.
2:00:27 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if prior convictions for possession of
marijuana from before it was legalized would count as priors for
purposes of elevation to a felony.
MS. SCHROEDER noted that [section 31] is prospective and said
she does not know how that would affect the lookback language.
After some reflection, she said she now realizes that such prior
convictions could be counted as priors. She added, "Whether or
not we would do that, I don't know." She said DOL would still
have the ability to "do deferment."
CHAIR CLAMAN added that DOL could also decide to charge it as a
misdemeanor and not a felony. He asked for verification that,
as drafted, Amendment 2 would apply to any scheduled controlled
substance within the last 10 years, as opposed to it being
limited to only schedule IA and schedule IIA controlled
substances.
MS. SCHROEDER apologized and said, as drafted, the lookback
period prescribed in Amendment 2 would apply only to schedule IA
or IIA controlled substances.
2:01:55 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:02 p.m. to 2:03 p.m.
2:03:38 PM
[Due to technical difficulties, part of Ms. Schroeder's
testimony was not picked up immediately after the committee went
back on the record.]
MS. SCHROEDER said, "... a possession conviction for marijuana,
it could count towards the bumping up to the felony."
2:03:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what the most severe crime is that
could qualify under the language "two or more separate occasions
of a crime."
MS. SCHROEDER said the most severe crime would be possession of
a schedule IA controlled substance, which is currently a class A
misdemeanor.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if possession of a schedule IIA controlled
substances would also qualify.
MS. SCHROEDER said yes. She explained that she interpreted the
question to be "the most serious" crime.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for an example of a schedule IA
controlled substance.
MS. SCHROEDER said heroin, fentanyl, and carfentanil are all
schedule IA controlled substances.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for verification that, should
Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 be adopted, an individual could have
any number of previous convictions in another jurisdiction for
heroin, but the court would not be able to take them into
consideration if they occurred more than 10 years ago.
MS. SCHROEDER answered, "If they are older than 10 years, then
yes, they would not count towards bumping up the classification
of the offense."
2:05:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that Amendment 2 would not apply the
lookback period to drug crimes that are automatically
prosecutable as felonies, including possession of date rape
drugs and possession offenses that occur on school grounds, on a
school bus, or at a recreational youth center.
2:06:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after a brief procedural discussion, returned to
the motion to adopt Amendment 1 to Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, Shaw, Kopp,
Stutes, and Claman voted in favor of adoption. Representative
Eastman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 to Amendment 2
was adopted by a vote of 5-1.
2:07:57 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN withdrew his objection to Amendment 2. There being
no further objection, Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted.
2:08:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 3, labeled 31-
LS0889\U.7, Radford, 4/25/19, which read as follows:
Page 25, line 11:
Delete "or"
Insert "[OR]"
Page 25, line 18, following "AS 11.61.118(a)(2);":
Insert "or
(F) conviction is for a crime involving
domestic violence; or"
CHAIR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX recited the following prepared remarks
verbatim:
The Alaska Criminal Justice Commission recommended
that the legislature reduce consequences for a broad
range of crimes, but they urged us to be tough on
domestic violence, probably because there is so much
of it in Alaska. SB 91 largely does have teeth when
it comes to domestic violence, but we still treat a
bunch of domestic violence crimes with kid gloves.
The guy punches his girlfriend. A judge can send him
to jail for up to a year for that class A misdemeanor.
But if that same guy goes to his estranged
girlfriend's house with a baseball bat and smashes her
barbecue while she and her children are cowering
nearby, the judge can only jail him for 30 days for
that. The children and the girlfriend don't know if
he's going to use that bat on them next. He's created
a violent, terrifying situation but he can only be
sentenced to 30 days for that. There is still a lot
of domestic violence in Alaska. People, mostly women,
are still suffering all these other DV crimes that we
don't allow judges to punish adequately. This
amendment allows judges more discretion. It doesn't
say a judge must jail perpetrators for longer; it says
judges may do that. It gives judges and prosecutors
more tools to combat Alaska's epidemic of domestic
violence. We should give them all the tools they need
to protect Alaskans.
You should have at your desk a list of the violent
crimes that this amendment would allow a judge to
punish with a sentence of up to a year. It's all the
offenses listed under the definition of domestic
violence and crimes involving domestic violence found
at AS 18.66.990(3). Domestic violence and crime
involving domestic violence under that section mean
one or more of the following offenses or an offense
under a law or ordinance of another jurisdiction
having elements similar to these offenses, or an
attempt to commit the offense, by a household member
against another household member. And it's crimes
against a person under AS 11.41, burglary under AS
11.46.300 to AS 11.46.310, criminal trespass, arson
and criminally negligent burning, criminal mischief,
terrorist threatening, violating a protective order,
harassment, cruelty to animals if the animal is a pet.
2:11:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how cruelty to animals is included
in Amendment 3, as it is not explicitly stated in the language
of the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said cruelty to animals qualifies as
domestic violence under AS 11.61.140(a)(5) if the animal is a
pet.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if that means a pet in the same
household.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she is not sure that the statute
specifies that. She explained that the legislature considered a
bill some years ago relating to pets and domestic violence. She
recalled hearing a lot of testimony" about divorce situations
in which one party "hold[s] the pet hostage and [does] nasty
things to it."
2:12:41 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN withdrew his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
2:13:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW moved to adopt Amendment 4, labeled 31-
LS0889\U.6, Radford, 4/25/19, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 5, following "test;":
Insert "relating to a pretrial risk assessment
instrument;"
Page 32, following line 7:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 51. AS 33.07.020 is amended to read:
Sec. 33.07.020. Duties of commissioner; pretrial
services. The commissioner shall
(1) appoint and make available to the
superior court and district court qualified pretrial
services officers;
(2) fix pretrial services officers'
salaries;
(3) assign pretrial services officers to
each judicial district;
(4) provide for the necessary supervision,
training, expenses, including clerical services, and
travel of pretrial services officers;
(5) approve a risk assessment instrument
that is objective, standardized, and developed based
on analysis of empirical data and risk factors
relevant to pretrial failure, that evaluates the
likelihood of failure to appear in court and the
likelihood of rearrest during the pretrial period,
[AND] that is validated on the state's pretrial
population, and that has been verified by peer review
as provided in (b) - (e) of this section; and
(6) adopt regulations in consultation with
the Department of Law, the public defender, the
Department of Public Safety, the office of victims'
rights, and the Alaska Court System, consistent with
this chapter and as necessary to implement the
program; the regulations must include a process for
pretrial services officers to make a recommendation to
the court concerning a pretrial release decision and
guidelines for pretrial diversion recommendations.
* Sec. 52. AS 33.07.020 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(b) Before the commissioner approves a risk
assessment instrument under (a)(5) of this section,
and every three years thereafter, the commissioner
shall submit the studies on which the risk assessment
instrument is based and other related data for peer
review by a minimum of three separate parties who are
not employees of the department and whom the
commissioner determines to be technically qualified in
the subject matter under review. The commissioner
shall ensure that the peer review includes an analysis
of the factors considered by the commissioner in
supporting the changes or additions to the risk
assessment instrument proposed to be adopted and
recommendations, if any, for additional research or
investigation considered appropriate. Peer review
reports shall be submitted to the commissioner within
45 days after the department submits a matter for peer
review unless the commissioner determines that
additional time is required.
(c) Before the commissioner approves a risk
assessment instrument under (a)(5) of this section,
and every three years thereafter, the commissioner
shall make available to the public, at convenient
locations and on the department's Internet website,
copies of the department's proposed risk assessment
instrument, the findings of the department describing
the basis for adoption of the risk assessment
instrument, and the peer review reports submitted
under (b) of this section.
(d) The commissioner shall contract with persons
to perform peer review under (b) of this section. All
persons shall be selected based on competitive sealed
proposals under AS 36.30.200 - 36.30.270 (State
Procurement Code). The commissioner may not contract
with a person to perform peer review under this
section if the person has a significant financial
interest or other significant interest that could bias
evaluation of the proposed risk assessment instrument.
An interest is not considered significant under this
subsection if it is an interest possessed generally by
the public or a large class of persons or if the
effect of the interest on the person's ability to be
impartial is only conjectural.
(e) If one or more peer review reports submitted
to the commissioner under (b) of this section state
the risk assessment instrument is flawed based on the
analysis of empirical data and risk factors relevant
to pretrial failure, the commissioner shall review the
risk assessment instrument to determine what changes
are necessary, amend the risk assessment instrument,
and resubmit the risk assessment instrument for peer
review."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 41, line 2:
Delete "sec. 51"
Insert "sec. 53"
CHAIR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
2:13:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW explained that, for a wide variety of
offenses, Alaska's judges are required to make use of the
state's pretrial risk assessment tool. This tool, he said,
plays a major, often-decisive role in determining the conditions
under which an offender is released prior to trial. He added
that how an offender scores on the tool is often what determines
whether he/she is released before trial on his/her own
recognizance, under electronic monitoring, or via monetary bail.
He noted that the tool is based on statistical research and, as
a matter of practice, though not of statute, the statistics are
periodically redone as part of a validation process.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW stressed the importance of ensuring that
such an impactful tool is viewed by the public as being
credible. He said he believes the best way to do that is to
ensure the studies and the conclusions of the validation process
be submitted for peer review. He explained that qualified
scholars would evaluate the validation process and recommend
changes should it not meet their threshold for approval. He
said the scholars' feedback would make the tool more effective.
He added that validation studies and the responses of the
reviewers would be made available for public review.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW explained that the peer review process would
follow a similar one used by the Department of Environmental
Conservation. He said the reviewers would be selected based on
the standard state procurement code. He argued that, if Alaska
is going to use the pretrial risk assessment tool, it should be
the best tool possible and based on the best research possible.
He said Amendment 4 would help assure and better inform the
Alaskan people.
2:15:13 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 2:15 p.m.
2:15:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for a real-life example of the
impact Amendment 4 would have.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW said it would provide a second set of eyes
to ensure no mistakes are made prior to the enactment of
pretrial sentencing procedures.
CHAIR CLAMAN withdrew his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
2:16:24 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that the meeting would be recessed to
allow Representative Kopp to present a bill to another
committee.
2:16:54 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 2:17 p.m.
2:17:21 PM
The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was recessed at
2:18 p.m. to a call of the chair. [The meeting reconvened at
2:46 p.m.]
2:46:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW moved to adopt Amendment 5, labeled 31-
LS0889\U.2, Radford, 4/24/19, which read as follows:
Page 21, following line 11:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 37. AS 12.55.125(c) is amended to read:
(c) Except as provided in (i) of this section, a
defendant convicted of a class A felony may be
sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of not
more than 20 years, and shall be sentenced to a
definite term within the following presumptive ranges,
subject to adjustment as provided in AS 12.55.155 -
12.55.175:
(1) if the offense is a first felony
conviction and does not involve circumstances
described in (2) of this subsection, five [THREE] to
eight [SIX] years;
(2) if the offense is a first felony
conviction and the defendant
[(A)] possessed a firearm, used a dangerous
instrument, or caused serious physical injury or death
during the commission of the offense [, FIVE TO NINE
YEARS;] or
[(B)] knowingly directed the conduct
constituting the offense at a uniformed or otherwise
clearly identified peace officer, firefighter,
correctional employee, emergency medical technician,
paramedic, ambulance attendant, or other emergency
responder who was engaged in the performance of
official duties at the time of the offense, seven to
11 years;
(3) if the offense is a second felony
conviction, 10 [EIGHT] to 14 [12] years;
(4) if the offense is a third felony
conviction and the defendant is not subject to
sentencing under (l) of this section, 15 [13] to 20
years."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 21, line 18:
Delete "90 days [ZERO] to two"
Insert "one [ZERO] to three [TWO]"
Page 22, line 5:
Delete "two to five"
Insert "four [TWO] to seven [FIVE]"
Page 22, line 6:
Delete "four"
Insert "six [FOUR]"
Page 22, following line 6:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 39. AS 12.55.125(e) is amended to read:
(e) Except as provided in (i) of this section, a
defendant convicted of a class C felony may be
sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of not
more than five years, and shall be sentenced to a
definite term within the following presumptive ranges,
subject to adjustment as provided in AS 12.55.155 -
12.55.175:
(1) if the offense is a first felony
conviction and does not involve circumstances
described in (4) of this subsection, zero to two
years; a defendant sentenced under this paragraph may,
if the court finds it appropriate, be granted a
suspended imposition of sentence under AS 12.55.085,
and the court may, as a condition of probation under
AS 12.55.086, require the defendant to serve an active
term of imprisonment within the range specified in
this paragraph;
(2) if the offense is a second felony
conviction, two [ONE] to four years;
(3) if the offense is a third felony
conviction, three [TWO] to five years;
(4) if the offense is a first felony
conviction, and the defendant violated
AS 08.54.720(a)(15), one to two years."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 40, line 12:
Delete "sec. 42"
Insert "sec. 44"
Page 40, line 13:
Delete "sec. 49"
Insert "sec. 51"
Page 40, line 14:
Delete "sec. 50"
Insert "sec. 52"
Page 40, following line 17:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(2) AS 12.55.125(c), as amended by sec. 37
of this Act;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 40, line 18:
Delete "sec. 37"
Insert "sec. 38"
Page 40, following line 18:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(4) AS 12.55.125(e), as amended by sec. 39
of this Act;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 40, line 19:
Delete "sec. 38"
Insert "sec. 40"
Page 40, line 20:
Delete "sec. 39"
Insert "sec. 41"
Page 40, line 21:
Delete "sec. 40"
Insert "sec. 42"
Page 40, line 22:
Delete "sec. 41"
Insert "sec. 43"
Page 40, line 25:
Delete "sec. 43"
Insert "sec. 45"
Page 40, line 26:
Delete "sec. 44"
Insert "sec. 46"
Page 40, line 27:
Delete "sec. 45"
Insert "sec. 47"
Page 40, line 28:
Delete "sec. 46"
Insert "sec. 48"
Page 41, line 2:
Delete "sec. 51"
Insert "sec. 53"
CHAIR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
2:46:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW said Amendment 5 would restore presumptive
sentences for felonies back to the levels they were prior to the
passage of Senate Bill 91 [Passed in the Twenty-Ninth Alaska
State Legislature] in 2016. He explained that the amendment
would increase felony sentences by 1 to 2 years in most cases.
He addressed a document prepared by his staff [included in the
committee packet] which featured a table highlighting the
proposed changes. He said it is axiomatic that crime is on the
rise in Alaska. He noted that he worked in public safety for
over 17 years and expressed that he would like to use that
experience to help fight crime. He remarked that crime has many
causes, including drug use, economic conditions, and mental
health issues. He said Alaska's current laws are not
effectively deterring crime. He said that needs to change. He
spoke to his experience training law enforcement officers and
argued that tougher sentences do deter offenders. He
acknowledged that others may disagree with him and point to
other drivers of crime and crime reduction. He said he is not
going to dispute their points but stressed that his experience
informs him that tougher sentences must be part of the solution,
or else it is not a solution.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW said the changes he is proposing are not
random, noting that they return to previous norms. He added
that the changes are the same as what has been requested by DOL.
He argued that they are the right changes and urged support for
Amendment 5.
2:48:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked if there is any data that links the
increase in crime to shorter sentences.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW said he does not have that data at hand,
though noted that he is sure it is readily available. He
expressed that the intent of Amendment 5 is to ensure felony
conduct is not met with "a slap on the hand" or a minimal
sentence.
2:49:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that if someone is in jail,
he/she cannot be out committing another crime.
2:49:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN began to address Representative Stutes's
question.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN interjected that the matter at hand is
questions for the maker of the amendment. He told
Representative Eastman to save his comments for after questions
are finished.
2:49:58 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked about the fiscal impact of the increases
proposed in Amendment 5.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW answered, "There will be a fiscal impact; we
just don't have the numbers at the moment."
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that SB 32 and HB 49, companion bills
introduced on behalf of Governor Michael J. Dunleavy, featured
fiscal notes entailing $43 million. He noted that those bills
include the same increases proposed in Amendment 5. He asked if
Representative Shaw believes that amount accurately represents
how much Amendment 5 would cost to enact.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW said he would assume that to be a ballpark
estimate.
CHAIR CLAMAN relayed that a recent Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission report showed that one of the benefits of criminal
justice reform was that the state of Alaska (SOA) did not have
to build another prison. He asked for Representative Shaw's
projection for how soon SOA would have to build a new prison if
the committee were to adopt Amendment 5 and HB 145 becomes law.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW said he is hoping the reforms work as well
as everyone would hope, and all Amendment 5 would do is replace
"one bed with another" so SOA would not have to build a new
prison. He noted that the question assumes that extended
sentences mean more people incarcerated. He said, f reform
works, I would hope for the best."
CHAIR CLAMAN said he thinks the assumption of the $43 million
fiscal note provided by Governor Dunleavy is that SOA would have
substantially increased corrections costs "which actually goes
to the beds." He remarked that the assumption is that there
will not be a decrease in crime, rather an increase of the
number of people serving prison time. He said he does not see
how SOA saves money in the long term and why it would not need a
new prison. He asked if Representative Shaw has "a better
explanation."
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW said he does not.
2:52:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that one benefit of saving money on prison
costs is that it frees up resources to support drug and alcohol
rehabilitation. He asked if Representative Shaw knows whether
there would be funds available to help support rehabilitation
should Amendment 5 be adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW said he would hope that part of the funds
would be used for behavior modification. He noted that it is a
priority to intercede early in crime-related matters in order to
avoid future problems. He said he would like to see a portion
of the funds go toward crime-prevention and supporting
individuals who need help.
2:53:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES said Amendment 5 would allow SOA "to put
people in jail time and time again." She relayed a statistic
she read that 60 percent of recidivists in Alaska have mental
health problems. She asked how stiffer sentences would benefit
the large percentage of the prison population "who don't belong
there in the first place."
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW remarked that if a person is in jail, then
more likely than not that person belongs in jail. He noted that
if there is some issue such as drug abuse or mental illness that
has contributed to an individual's incarceration, he hopes SOA
can help prevent that individual from recidivating. He said he
cannot say how many people are incarcerated for criminal
activity related to drug abuse or mental health issues. He
noted that SOA can better help people while they are
incarcerated than by letting them by releasing them to commit
more crimes.
2:54:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked where Representative Stutes got the
60 percent mental illness number. He expressed that one would
have to define someone who commits a crime as being mentally ill
by default to get those kinds of high numbers. He said he does
not think that, absent the crime, that 60 percent of inmates or
more are otherwise considered mentally ill.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES said she derived that number from a
presentation before the House Finance Committee. She said she
thinks the number used was 65 or 66 percent of people currently
incarcerated in Alaska have mental problems.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that it is well-documented that DOC is the
largest mental health provider in Alaska. He said he believes
that fact is based on diagnosed mental illnesses.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked which agency provided those
statistics to the House Finance Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES said she believes it was DOC.
2:56:41 PM
KELLY GOODE, Deputy Commissioner & Legislative Liaison,
Department of Corrections, said she does not want to speak to
the actual percentage, as she does not have the numbers in front
of her. She confirmed that DOC is a very large mental health
provider. She noted that mental health statistics consider a
spectrum of issues that range from acute mental illness to
anxiety and depression. She confirmed that DOC houses many
people who require assistance.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether under the current version of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the
simple fact that one has committed a criminal offense qualifies
a person for a diagnosable illness as relates to discussion of
DOC being a mental health provider.
MS. GOODE said she would rather not try to answer that question.
She said she can get back to the committee with an answer.
2:57:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how many of the 60 percent are
people who truly need to be in a facility such as the Alaska
Psychiatric Institute (API) versus those who suffer from issues
such as anxiety that may affect broad swathes of the general
population.
MS. GOODE said she can get back to the committee with those
numbers but noted that when an inmate needs to be at API, DOC
doctors work with API to address that need.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said what the committee is trying to
figure out is not how well DOC is helping people with major
mental health issues, but whether or not it makes sense to put
those people in prison. She said there is an idea that if a
person is afflicted with major mental health problems, then
maybe he/she does not belong in prison. She noted that a person
who suffers from depression or anxiety is "a different
ballgame."
MS. GOODE said she understands what the committee is weighing,
and that the decision is a policy call. She commented that the
people in DOC custody who have major mental health issues are in
DOC custody for some offense, and that DOC's medical providers
are helping those individuals with their mental health issues.
As relates to Amendment 5 and determining who and who should not
be incarcerated, she said it is a larger policy call that should
be looked at more broadly.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said it would help the committee to know
what percentage of the people housed by DOC have major mental
health issues as opposed to relatively more benign mental health
issues such as depression and anxiety.
MS. GOODE asked if she is referring to those who may be in DOC
custody under AS 47.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX clarified that she means those who are
imprisoned for having committed a crime.
MS. GOODE said she can get those numbers to the committee. She
said she does not want to answer without knowing the exact
numbers.
3:00:45 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that, in terms of timing, it is unlikely to
make an impact in terms of the decision whether or not to adopt
Amendment 5. He described the request for those numbers as
fair and reasoned curiosity about the prison population. He
said it is not vital to have those numbers today.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed that she would like to see those
numbers before HB 145 is heard on the House floor.
MS. GOODE said Laura Brooks, Deputy Director of Health &
Rehabilitative Services, recently presented those numbers before
the House Finance Committee. She said she can get those numbers
to Representative LeDoux in the next few days.
CHAIR CLAMAN said he would appreciate if the committee received
those numbers by Monday.
3:01:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if it the case that DOC has in its
custody inmates who belong at API, but API cannot accommodate
them. If so, he added, how many?
MS. GOODE answered that DOC houses people like that from time to
time. She said the number changes depending on what beds are
available at API. She added that it is a low number.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if it is under 5 percent.
MS. GOODE said it is very rarely more than 10 individuals.
3:03:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for confirmation that the
provisions in Amendment 5 match those in other bills supported
by DOL. He asked why DOL supports those provisions.
MS. SCHROEDER said Amendment 5 mirrors provisions that are in
Governor Dunleavy's crime package. She said part of the thought
process was that DOL had seen an uptick in crime and wanted to
give judges additional tools to deal with the increase. She
explained that she is not "the data person" so she does not have
any numbers to present.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referenced the earlier discussion that it
would cost approximately $43 million to implement the provisions
contained in Amendment 5. He asked if that is the best estimate
available. He also asked whether the $43 million figure is a
one-time cost or if it is expected to be an annual cost
MS. SCHROEDER deferred to Ms. Goode, as the fiscal note from
which that number is derived was submitted by DOC.
MS. GOODE, after hearing the question repeated, noted that the
fiscal note was prepared by DOC's Office of Management & Budget
(OMB) Administrative Services Director (ASD). She said the
fiscal note, which she clarified is for a different bill, is for
approximately $41 million every year, not just one year. She
added that the fiscal note will be revised due to amendments
added to its bill. She speculated that Amendment 5 has all of
the costs from the other bill, though noted that she is not
certain and would have to do a more thorough analysis.
3:06:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked if the fiscal note in question
includes the costs that would be incurred by having to make
additional beds available, such as by reopening the Palmer
Correctional Center.
MS. GOODE relayed that the Senate Finance Committee determined
the cost of reopening the Palmer Correctional Center would be
approximately $5.8 million to $6 million. She noted that the
cost of care for inmates is already included in the fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked for confirmation that the additional
cost of opening the Palmer Correctional Center is not included
in the fiscal note.
MS. GOODE noted that DOC's ASD handles fiscal notes. She said
it is her understanding that the ASD will include the additional
funds in a revised fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked for clarification that the cost of
reopening the Palmer Correctional Center was not included in the
fiscal note that was presented but will be included in a
forthcoming note.
MS. GOODE said that is correct.
3:09:08 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Goode how long she has worked for DOC.
MS. GOODE said she came on with the new administration.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether DOC believes it can satisfy the
expected increase in inmates as a result of sentencing changes
solely through reopening the Palmer Correctional Center and, if
not, when it expects it would need to construct a new prison.
MS. GOODE answered that currently the only thing discussed has
been the reopening of the Palmer Correctional Center.
3:10:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that, now that it has been
established that there are costs associated with Amendment 5, he
wants to weigh the return on those costs. He asked about the
projected impacts on public safety and crime.
MS. SCHROEDER said increases in sentences can have a deterrent
effect. She added that if a person is in custody, he/she cannot
commit further crimes against the public. She said those are
the immediate benefits. She noted that Amendment 5 would also
grant judges additional tools to deal with the cases before
them.
3:11:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW noted that it has been difficult to organize
data around Amendment 5 because HB 145 was introduced only a few
days prior. He said the reason he made and moved the amendment
is because first-time class B felony offenses currently require
no jail time. He said that under HB 145, the minimum sentence
would move to 90 days, which he characterized as not
appropriate. He opined that a one-year minimum sentence would
be appropriate.
3:12:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said he agrees that fixing the class B
felony sentencing structure is warranted. He remarked that he
wishes there was an amendment just to do that. He said his law
enforcement experience taught him that people who get caught up
in drug possession are often young adults who have made poor
life choices and/or people who are dealing with trauma. He
clarified that those people are not drug traffickers, rather
just possessors. He spoke to the cycle of incarceration and
release. He noted that, despite being "a law and order guy," he
questions whether that system works.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referenced the case Smith v. State and noted
that it demonstrates how major drug runners can run their whole
operations from jail and continue to perpetuate crime against
the public. He said he would support increased penalties for
"real bad guy[s]" who oversee continuing criminal enterprises.
He acknowledged Representative Shaw's point about class B
felonies but argued that punishments should be proportional. He
listed several crimes that are class C felonies: assault in the
third degree, sexual assault in the third degree, sexual abuse
of a minor in the third degree, custodial interference, burglary
in the second degree, vehicle theft, theft in the second degree,
killing a police dog, sex with a juvenile prostitute, and sex
trafficking in the third degree. He raised the question whether
possessing a bill without a prescription is as serious as the
listed crimes.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said he agreed that "we need to get tougher
on crime" and advocated for an approach that targets those who
are not participating in their own rehabilitation. He said he
would support some of what is contained in Amendment 5 "in more
nuanced forms."
3:16:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he finds it odd that the only type
of funding discussed by the committee is the funding provided by
SOA to DOC. He noted that the committee has not discussed the
financial cost borne by the public. He relayed that a relative
of his staff was the victim of a home invasion robbery attempt.
He noted that he personally knows others who have had similar
experiences in the time since criminal sentences were reduced.
He argued that, by not passing amendments like Amendment 5, the
committee is saving money for the state but is imposing personal
costs on the people of Alaska through being victims of crime,
spending on home security, and having their property stolen. He
said he does not see that as a win for SOA even if the result is
less money spent by DOC.
3:19:11 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said the amendment raises a number of questions
related to presumptive sentences and whether "we trust the
courts to figure things out." He noted that the presumptive
sentencing structure does not prevent the courts from sentencing
a first-time offender to the maximum sentence that is allowed by
law. He said all that is required to go above the presumptive
range is that the court finds aggravating factors, and all that
is required to go below the presumptive range is that the court
finds mitigating factors. He said the criminal justice reforms
made in recent years recognized that judges need more discretion
and not less. He added that the reforms also recognized that
SOA's corrections spending was unsustainable unless SOA started
pulling from other essential services, such as education. He
noted that DOC's population had grown 27 percent over a 10-year
period while the population of the state had grown only 9
percent. He said the most telling factor for whether a person
will turn to a life of crime is whether or not he/she has a high
school diploma.
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that Governor Dunleavy's proposed budget
reinforces that the committee must make priority decisions. He
said the governor's priority is to issue $3,000 permanent fund
dividend (PFD) checks at the expense of education funding. He
said that means, should presumptive sentences return to pre-
reform levels, every dollar that will be spent on corrections is
one fewer dollar spent on education. He stressed that it would
mean more money spent on incarcerating more people and less
spent on education. He said this would result in fewer people
graduating from high school with a high school diploma and more
people growing up in families with histories of crime and
drug/alcohol abuse. He said those people "will be coming to the
same place and going down the same path."
CHAIR CLAMAN said he has always liked the idea of the deterrent
effect but noted that he has seen people go into prison and
return "to their same crimes because of their addictions ... and
their lack of education." He spoke to the topic of priorities
and noted that SOA did not have to construct a new prison during
the last five years. He said that would not have been the case
if the legislature had not passed criminal justice reforms. He
said SOA is starting to see benefits in terms of reduced
recidivism. He stated that, for all those reasons, he will not
be supporting Amendment 5.
3:22:34 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives LeDoux, Eastman,
and Shaw voted in favor of adopting Amendment 5.
Representatives Stutes, Kopp, and Claman voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 5 was not adopted by a vote of 3-3.
3:23:11 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 145 would be held for further
review.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB145 ver U 4.24.19.PDF |
HJUD 4/24/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/25/2019 5:15:00 PM HJUD 4/26/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 145 |
| HB145 Sponsor Statement ver U 4.24.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/24/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/25/2019 5:15:00 PM HJUD 4/26/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 145 |
| HB145 Sectional Analysis ver U 4.24.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/24/2019 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/25/2019 5:15:00 PM HJUD 4/26/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 145 |
| HB145 Additional Document- ACLU Letter 4.26.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/26/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 145 |
| HB145 Supporting Document-Public Comment 4.26.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/26/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 145 |
| HB145 Opposing Document-Public Comment 4.26.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/26/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 145 |
| HB145 Amendments #1-5 4.26.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/26/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 145 |
| HB145 Additional Document-Supporting Document for Amendment #3 4.26.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/26/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 145 |
| HB145 Additional Document-Supporting Document for Amendment #5 4.26.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/26/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 145 |
| HB145 Amendments #1-5 HJUD Final Votes 4.26.19.pdf |
HJUD 4/26/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 145 |